General Premier League Thread - 2016/2017

davycc

Manchester United

We want 6!

ongarite

Kane, unreal

davycc

Manchester United

Wow he is unreal 4 goal hero still time for a 7th

The Talking Bread

Corholio wrote: »

I really like watching Spurs but they have to be a lot wiser with big money next season. Both Sissoko and Janssen have been disasters, Sissoko especially was atrocious transfer business. He wasn't even useful as a sub this season.

I wouldn't say the decision to buy Janssen was "unwise". Everything backed up the decision. Unfortunately, it just hasn't worked out (yet);

He still has lots of potential and is merely 22.

Royale with Cheese

Sky desperately trying to sell the gripping finale of the golden boot winner on Sunday as there really is very little else to play for.

davycc

Manchester United

Think Kane has 10 goals in 6 pl games against these diving gimp's!

Bogey teams eh ....

Mushy

davycc wrote: »

Think Kane has 10 goals in 6 pl games against these diving gimp's!

Bogey teams eh ....

On the flipside, these "diving gimps" have one more PL medal than Harry Kane!

Corholio

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I wouldn't say the decision to buy Janssen was "unwise". Everything backed up the decision. Unfortunately, it just hasn't worked out (yet);

He still has lots of potential and is merely 22.

You don't often get too many chances after, let's face it, a shocking season for him. An average season you can build on but his record was a running joke throughout the season. Of course he might come good but the really bad scoring and general input from him would surely already have Spurs on the lookout for strikers.

ERG89

theoneeyedman wrote:

I heard the notion on the radio last night about introducing a playoff for the last champions league place.

Well I can't understand why the bottom 10 or 12 sides don't want to push to qualify for the Europa League as it's not above them or even do well in the domestic cups. I'd actually criticise the premier league clubs down there more than their European contemporaries as they are spending a lot more money to go nowhere.

The Talking Bread

Corholio wrote: »

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I wouldn't say the decision to buy Janssen was "unwise". Everything backed up the decision. Unfortunately, it just hasn't worked out (yet);

He still has lots of potential and is merely 22.

You don't often get too many chances after, let's face it, a shocking season for him. An average season you can build on but his record was a running joke throughout the season. Of course he might come good but the really bad scoring and general input from him would surely already have Spurs on the lookout for strikers.

Possibly buy my original point was the decision to buy him was made with very fair reasoning and wouldn't have called it an unwise transfer punt

batistuta9

5starpool wrote: »

Prize money in the PL this season.

1 38m chelsea
2 36.1m spurs
3 34.2m
4 32.3m
5 30.4m
6 28.5m man u
7 26.6m everton
8 24.7m
9 22.8m
10 20.9m
11 19m
12 17.1m
13 15.2m
14 13.3m
15 11.4m
16 9.5m
17 7.6m
18 5.7m hull
19 3.8m boro
20 1.9m sunderland

Left to play for

TitianGerm

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I wouldn't say the decision to buy Janssen was "unwise". Everything backed up the decision. Unfortunately, it just hasn't worked out (yet);

He still has lots of potential and is merely 22.

Someone on here said Jansen would be taking Kanes place in the Spurs team on here before the season started.

I bet he feels a bit foolish now!!

Corholio

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Possibly buy my original point was the decision to buy him was made with very fair reasoning and wouldn't have called it an unwise transfer punt

My original point was that it has been turned out a very poor transfer, possibly need better reasoning with the bigger sums they'll spend.

theoneeyedman

emmetkenny wrote: »

Someone on here said Jansen would be taking Kanes place in the Spurs team on here before the season started.

I bet he feels a bit foolish now!!

Whatever about jansen, sissoko you could see coming a mile away. Did nowt for Newcastle, played OK in euros, got his deal with Spurs and reverted to type.
Bad deal for Spurs.

764dak

ERG89 wrote: »

Well I can't understand why the bottom 10 or 12 sides don't want to push to qualify for the Europa League as it's not above them or even do well in the domestic cups. I'd actually criticise the premier league clubs down there more than their European contemporaries as they are spending a lot more money to go nowhere.

When was the last time a team from outside the top 10 in Spain or Italy made it to a domestic final?

ArmaniJeanss

theoneeyedman wrote: »

I heard the notion on the radio last night about introducing a playoff for the last champions league place. It seems it happens in other leagues (Belgium?), it's up to the League how they select the teams. Would keep interest in the mid table teams, 7th could make the champions league, rather than packing it in in mid February

Was it a radio station where they tend to know their stuff, because my understanding is that that's all basically bollox. CL places can only be allocated by league position is one of UEFA's core rules of the competition.
Belgium is 'curious' in that they decide their league with a top 6 splitoff after 30 games, and then have a playoff round with the halving of existing points and then full points for the remaining 10 games. But the Champions & RunnersUp are still the teams who go into the ECL. No way could a lower placed team get a spot.

764dak

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Was it a radio station where they tend to know their stuff, because my understanding is that that's all basically bollox. CL places can only be allocated by league position is one of UEFA's core rules of the competition.
Belgium is 'curious' in that they decide their league with a top 6 splitoff after 30 games, and then have a playoff round with the halving of existing points and then full points for the remaining 10 games. But the Champions & RunnersUp are still the teams who go into the ECL. No way could a lower placed team get a spot.

The Netherlands had Champions League playoffs for teams 2-5 for 3 seasons.

The 4th-placed Dutch team got the 2nd UCL spots in 2006 and 2008.

And they currently have a Europa League playoff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016%E2%80%9317_Eredivisie#European_competition

ArmaniJeanss

764dak wrote: »

The Netherlands had Champions League playoffs for teams 2-5 for 3 seasons and they currently have a Europa League playoff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016%E2%80%9317_Eredivisie#European_competition

Yep, they had to abandon the CL playoff when UEFA brought in the current rule 4/5 few years ago. Europa League playoff is allowed, a few do it.

Rule 3.02 on this pdf for any interested nerds.
http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/35/87/89/2358789_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Fairly clearcut, though you could possibly attempt to get around the spirit of it I suppose - doubt it would be allowed.

ERG89

764dak wrote:

When was the last time a team from outside the top 10 in Spain or Italy made it to a domestic final?

Alaves are in it this year.
I couldn't genuinely say who was in the coppa Italia final beyond 2 or 3 years ago as they weren't on tv much before then & it all blends into one think Palermo made one a few years back.

764dak

ERG89 wrote: »

Alaves are in it this year.
I couldn't genuinely say who was in the coppa Italia final beyond 2 or 3 years ago as they weren't on tv much before then & it all blends into one think Palermo made one a few years back.

Palermo finished 8th in 2011.

ERG89

764dak wrote:

Palermo finished 8th in 2011.

Didn't even know the year. Harder in those leagues as the ties in Spain are still over 2 legs so upsets are rare & were 2 legs in Italy up until recently.
It still doesn't explain why the premier league teams were rotating in those competitions when realistically it's their only chance of silverware. I assume they are spending money with the aim to go somewhere or moving up the table. West Brom have 1 win in their last 11 league matches & I think only Southampton made up ground on them to overtake them. The others got to 40 & put their feet up.

Bridge93

Spain is an interesting one. Getafe in 2008 seem to be the last bottom half team to contest the final of the copa del Rey. Yet including that final, every final from 1999-2008 had at least one team from outside the top 10 bar one year. One year both sides were bottom half. It's been dominated by the big sides since.

The Talking Bread

Even if Spurs manage to keep that first squad, they still need to add at least three or 4 very good players. Especially a striker and another couple of attacking midfielders.
They have had a few injuries over the last two years but, like Chelsea this year and Leicester last year they have had a lot of "luck" in that respect.

Spurs fans will disagree to an extent but they were lucky in that their injuries didn't generally all hit at once, (like other clubs) even though Vertonghen, Alderweireld, Rose, Kane & Dembele all missed stints.

Like Chelsea, being out of Europe was a great help also as post October to now they have been the best team in the league all in all. But for that October period, they may be lifting that trophy this year.

764dak

Bridge93 wrote: »

Spain is an interesting one. Getafe in 2008 seem to be the last bottom half team to contest the final of the copa del Rey. Yet including that final, every final from 1999-2008 had at least one team from outside the top 10 bar one year. One year both sides were bottom half. It's been dominated by the big sides since.

Because Spanish football became uncompetitive in 2008.

764dak

ERG89 wrote: »

It still doesn't explain why the premier league teams were rotating in those competitions when realistically it's their only chance of silverware. I assume they are spending money with the aim to go somewhere or moving up the table. West Brom have 1 win in their last 11 league matches & I think only Southampton made up ground on them to overtake them. The others got to 40 & put their feet up.

The players aren't spending the money.

GavRedKing

Chelsea

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Like Chelsea, being out of Europe was a great help also as post October to now they have been the best team in the league all in all. But for that October period, they may be lifting that trophy this year.

Well thats wrong.

Since the 1st weekend of October, both sides have played 31 PL games.

Chelsea won 26 - 78 Pts
Spurs won 21 - 63 Pts

Chelsea drew 2 - 80 pts
Spurs drew 6 - 69 pts

Chelsea lost 3 - 80 pts
Spurs lost 4 - 69 pts

Chelsea have scored 70 goals
Spurs have scored 67

Chelsea have left in 23 goals
Spurs have left in 22 goals

So since October, Chelsea have won more, drawn less, lost less games than Spurs, outscored them and have left in 1 more goal giving Chelsea a superior GD of +2.

Spurs since October have been 2nd best, like they have been all season, a good season for them but still falling short, just about.

They'll be there or there abouts again next season though, as Chelsea and Spurs have been clearly the two best sides in the league Since October and have opened up a decent lead over the rest of the table.

TitianGerm

GavRedKing wrote: »

Well thats wrong.

Since the 1st weekend of October, both sides have played 31 PL games.

Chelsea won 26 - 78 Pts
Spurs won 21 - 69 Pts

Chelsea drew 2 - 80 pts
Spurs drew 6 - 75 pts

Chelsea lost 3 - 80 pts
Spurs lost 4 - 75 pts

Chelsea have scored 70 goals
Spurs have scored 67

Chelsea have left in 23 goals
Spurs have left in 22 goals

So since October, Chelsea have won more, drawn less, lost less games than Spurs, outscored them and have left in 1 more goal giving Chelsea a superior GD of +2.

Spurs since October have been 2nd best, like they have been all season, a good season for them but still falling short, just about.

They'll be there or there abouts again next season though, as Chelsea and Spurs have been clearly the two best sides in the league Since October and have opened up a decent lead over the rest of the table.

Well that settles that !!

The Talking Bread

GavRedKing wrote: »

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Like Chelsea, being out of Europe was a great help also as post October to now they have been the best team in the league all in all. But for that October period, they may be lifting that trophy this year.

Well thats wrong.

Since the 1st weekend of October, both sides have played 31 PL games.

Chelsea won 26 - 78 Pts
Spurs won 21 - 69 Pts

Chelsea drew 2 - 80 pts
Spurs drew 6 - 75 pts

Chelsea lost 3 - 80 pts
Spurs lost 4 - 75 pts

Chelsea have scored 70 goals
Spurs have scored 67

Chelsea have left in 23 goals
Spurs have left in 22 goals

So since October, Chelsea have won more, drawn less, lost less games than Spurs, outscored them and have left in 1 more goal giving Chelsea a superior GD of +2.

Spurs since October have been 2nd best, like they have been all season, a good season for them but still falling short, just about.

They'll be there or there abouts again next season though, as Chelsea and Spurs have been clearly the two best sides in the league Since October and have opened up a decent lead over the rest of the table.

I've said they have been the better team. In my opinion, all and all since the END of October they have. They had an awful October, relatively speaking which ( and many agree with me on this) probably cost them the league.

I specifically said end of October.

GavRedKing

Chelsea

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I've said they have been the better team. In my opinion, all and all since the END of October they have. They had an awful October, relatively speaking which ( and many agree with me on this) probably cost them the league.

I specifically said end of October.

I've re done the figures for ya to only include games played from the weekend of 5/6th November, youre welcome.

Chelsea won 22 - 66 Pts
Spurs won 20 - 60 Pts

Chelsea drew 2 - 68 pts
Spurs drew 3 - 63 pts

Chelsea lost 3 - 68 pts
Spurs lost 4 - 63 pts

Chelsea have scored 59 goals
Spurs have scored 63 goals

Chelsea have left in 23 goals
Spurs have left in 20 goals

Johner

Spurs have been brilliant this season, clear second best and in the last few months have probably been the better team. You have to be consistent for the whole season though. I think they'll struggle next season at Wembley, the move is coming at the wrong time.

The odds for next season are funny, City are favourites and some places have United shorter than Chelsea to win the league. :pac:

rob316

Spurs problem is they cant win away to their rivals.

Lost to Liverpool
Drew with Man City
Lost to Chelsea
Drew Arsenal
Lost to United

2 points from 15, its not league winning form.

GavRedKing

Chelsea

Johner wrote: »

Spurs have been brilliant this season, clear second best and in the last few months have probably been the better team. You have to be consistent for the whole season though. I think they'll struggle next season at Wembley, the move is coming at the wrong time.

The odds for next season are funny, City are favourites and some places have United shorter than Chelsea to win the league. :pac:

I think theyre making alterations to the Wembley pitch size to match WHL and suit Spurs.

Its something theyve trotted out anytime they play there that the pitch is too big. Spurs play on a 100m x 67m at the Lane. Wembley is cuurently 105m x 69m.

HalloweenJack

Johner wrote: »

The odds for next season are funny, City are favourites and some places have United shorter than Chelsea to win the league. :pac:

Just look at the poll that was on here for this season.

The Talking Bread

GavRedKing wrote: »

I've re done the figures for ya to only include games played from the weekend of 5/6th November, youre welcome.

Fair enough, I got a bit jumbled on dates there. It is probably more since start/mid December that they have been the better quality team.

I guess it is more a two month period (a long time but a singular period) that cost them actually looking back at the results from mid October to mid December actually.

After the City game, they won 2 games in 8 PL matches. Those 2 games coming at home against Swansea and West Ham. (the game against West Ham where they needed 2 goals in the last 2 minutes to win!)

Chelsea's results in that period 9 wins.

I know I am shifting the goal posts now on my original point (no need to point this out to me - I obviously hadn't properly analysed all the results, more reflecting on the general period in my mind!) so starting again and reflecting on those results and looking at the table now, it just shows you how much that period cost them.

They also had a few injuries (particularly Harry Kane in games they were extremely goal shy - 3 goals for Spurs in 6 games and no wins.) back then so it shows you that their squad depth needs working on.

But all and all from August to mid October and from December to May, they have been the better team, quality wise and, indeed, points wise, goals wise, defensive wise.

Thats my NEW point!

TitianGerm

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Fair enough, I got a bit jumbled on dates there. It is probably more since start/mid December that they have been the better quality team.

I guess it is more a two month period (a long time but a singular period) that cost them actually looking back at the results from mid October to mid December actually.

After the City game, they won 2 games in 8 PL matches. Those 2 games coming at home against Swansea and West Ham. (the game against West Ham where they needed 2 goals in the last 2 minutes to win!)

Chelsea's results in that period 9 wins.

I know I am shifting the goal posts now on my original point (no need to point this out to me - I obviously hadn't properly analysed all the results, more reflecting on the general period in my mind!) so starting again and reflecting on those results and looking at the table now, it just shows you how much that period cost them.

They also had a few injuries back then so it shows you that their squad depth needs working on.

But all and all from August to mid October and from December to May, they have been the better team, quality wise and, indeed, points wise, goals wise, defensive wise.

Thats my NEW point!

And if it turns out Chelsea are better from December do we go January? :pac:

GavRedKing

Chelsea

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Fair enough, I got a bit jumbled on dates there. It is probably more since start/mid December that they have been the better quality team.

I guess it is more a two month period (a long time but a singular period) that cost them actually looking back at the results from mid October to mid December actually.

After the City game, they won 2 games in 8 PL matches. Those 2 games coming at home against Swansea and West Ham. (the game against West Ham where they needed 2 goals in the last 2 minutes to win!)

Chelsea's results in that period 9 wins.

I know I am shifting the goal posts now on my original point (no need to point this out to me - I obviously hadn't properly analysed all the results, more reflecting on the general period in my mind!) so starting again and reflecting on those results and looking at the table now, it just shows you how much that period cost them.

They also had a few injuries (particularly Harry Kane in games they were extremely goal shy - 3 goals for Spurs in 6 games and no wins.) back then so it shows you that their squad depth needs working on.

But all and all from August to mid October and from December to May, they have been the better team, quality wise and, indeed, points wise, goals wise, defensive wise.

Thats my NEW point!

Thats some brilliant moving of goal posts, I'll give ya that.

I've no problem people saying Spurs were the better side, they still finished 2nd over 38 games whcih is the most important stat.

I'd happily be considered the 2nd best side but actually 1st in the league every year, I'm sure everyone would.

The Talking Bread

emmetkenny wrote: »

And if it turns out Chelsea are better from December do we go January? :pac:

Yes.

And so on and so forth.



But, no, that is my final point!! But do you not agree on that FINAL analysis? My point is it was a singular period where they seemed to really lose form that cost them dearly.
I know you have to analyse the whole season, not denying that, but I am merely saying that period cost them the league. I firmly believe they were the better team before that and after that. Momentum is great but the ability to reemerge from a knockback (which Spurs couldn't in that period is poor)

But Chelsea were more consistent, picked themselves up after any small knockback and that is what, deservedly, won them the league.

Harry Palmr

Average running distances for the season




Most running

TitianGerm

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Yes.

And so on and so forth.



But, no, that is my final point!! But do you not agree on that FINAL analysis? My point is it was a singular period where they seemed to really lose form that cost them dearly.
I know you have to analyse the whole season, not denying that, but I am merely saying that period cost them the league. I firmly believe they were the better team before that and after that. Momentum is great but the ability to reemerge from a knockback (which Spurs couldn't in that period is poor)

But Chelsea were more consistent, picked themselves up after any small knockback and that is what, deservedly, won them the league.

I know what your saying alright I just thought it was very funny the way you shifted the pitch nevermind the goalposts

The Talking Bread

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Average running distances for the season




Most running

Sunderland's running was mainly to tip off after a goal, Boro's was Adama Traore running into a brick wall.

ERG89

rob316 wrote:

Spurs problem is they cant win away to their rivals.

Chelsea won at City, drew at Anfield but lost at Spurs, Arsenal & United. 4/15 ain't that great either tbh.
Spurs struggled most from the bench imo, when they had to change a game they were calling on Sissoko & Janssen whereas Chelsea had Willian, Fabregas & Batshuayi. They were always chasing once Chelsea went on that winning streak.

GavRedKing

Chelsea

I just checked there about Kane missing Spurs games and costing them points.

He missed 8 games, Spurs won 5 and drew 3, even if they won those 3, theyed still be 2nd.

The Talking Bread

GavRedKing wrote: »

I just checked there about Kane missing Spurs games and costing them points.

He missed 8 games, Spurs won 5 and drew 3, even if they won those 3, theyed still be 2nd.

Jesus, man, I was speaking about that particular period where they struggled when he was missing!!
It was during that momentum losing, goal shy period that they needed someone to convert a draw say against West Brom or Bournemouth into a win.
Look, for example against West Ham, one of their only wins in the PL in that period, Kane was able to score 2 last minute goals to grasp a win.

They were completely dominating games but hadn't that bit of quality up front in his absence to break through. I know he missed a couple of games in March, ( I think?), against the likes of Burnley and Swansea but they had so much momentum going into those games and were playing with so much confidence that players like Son and Eriksen were able to step up to the plate and grab vital late goals like against Swansea.

You could probably argue that his absence back then cost them Champions League progression also.

I am not shifting any goal posts, my point is clear!

Johner

GavRedKing wrote: »

I just checked there about Kane missing Spurs games and costing them points.

He missed 8 games, Spurs won 5 and drew 3, even if they won those 3, theyed still be 2nd.

He'd probably have 30 goals if he didn't get injured but I remember they did fine without him and he wasn't as big a loss as I thought he would be. Would love Kane at Chelsea instead of Lukaku but would obviously never ever happen.

TitianGerm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Average running distances for the season




Most running

United's average is quite low. Most of it probably came when they sent runners down to the stream for fresh water for their campsite in front of their own box

GavRedKing

Chelsea

Johner wrote: »

He'd probably have 30 goals if he didn't get injured but I remember they did fine without him and he wasn't as big a loss as I thought he would be. Would love Kane at Chelsea instead of Lukaku but would obviously never ever happen.

Would never, ever happen. Levy wont deal with Arsenal and Chelsea.

Remember the Modric incident? We wanted him for over 40m, player wanted to go, Spurs rejected and he ended up at Madrid the following summer for about 30m.

The Talking Bread

I anticipate that the game against City, one of their best performances of the season, when he was missing may be now flung into the argument to disprove my point now.....;)
Probably more a reflection how dismal City were in defence that day!!

GavRedKing

Chelsea

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Jesus, man, I was speaking about that particular period where they struggled when he was missing!!
It was during that momentum losing, goal shy period that they needed someone to convert a draw say against West Brom or Bournemouth into a win.
Look, for example against West Ham, one of their only wins in the PL in that period, Kane was able to score 2 last minute goals to grasp a win.

They were completely dominating games but hadn't that bit of quality up front in his absence to break through. I know he missed a couple of games in March, ( I think?), against the likes of Burnley and Swansea but they had so much momentum going into those games and were playing with so much confidence that players like Son and Eriksen were able to step up to the plate and grab vital late goals like against Swansea.

You could probably argue that his absence back then cost them Champions League progression also.

I am not shifting any goal posts, my point is clear!

Wasnt aimed at you.

I only seen your Kane post now, I seen the stat on Twitter so posted from there.

But one last point from me, I'd probably ackowledge Spurs as the best footballing side this season but that doesnt always win you trophies. Arsenal used to be declared that for years and didnt bring home trophies.

However, Spurs are very close and I wouldnt begrudge them a trophy in the near future, their biggest issue will now be holding onto the manager in the talented core of the squad while filling in the gaps with good and able backups.

Sheepy99

GavRedKing wrote: »

Well thats wrong.

Since the 1st weekend of October, both sides have played 31 PL games.

Chelsea won 26 - 78 Pts
Spurs won 21 - 63 Pts

Chelsea drew 2 - 80 pts
Spurs drew 6 - 69 pts

Chelsea lost 3 - 80 pts
Spurs lost 4 - 69 pts

Chelsea have scored 70 goals
Spurs have scored 67

Chelsea have left in 23 goals
Spurs have left in 22 goals

So since October, Chelsea have won more, drawn less, lost less games than Spurs, outscored them and have left in 1 more goal giving Chelsea a superior GD of +2.

Spurs since October have been 2nd best, like they have been all season, a good season for them but still falling short, just about.

They'll be there or there abouts again next season though, as Chelsea and Spurs have been clearly the two best sides in the league Since October and have opened up a decent lead over the rest of the table.

Ehhhh .... the word is let:p

Left Back on the Bench

Harry Palmr wrote:

Most running

And people say Eriksen is a luxury player